Teens Locked Up for Life Without a Second Chance

Criminal Justice

Juveniles who are Imprisoned for Life with No Parole

We live in a world where human beings of any age commit and are punished for menial to heinous crimes. In other words, humans at every stage of life are committing and being punished for crimes, including children and teenagers, called juveniles under the law until they reach adulthood. The paper will explore and debate the pros and cons of sentencing juveniles as LWOPs. The paper will reference recent and groundbreaking cases of juvenile crime and debatable sentencing. The paper aims to provide a modern context within which to examine and debate the use of life sentencing without parole for juvenile offenders. Ultimately, the paper concludes that LWOP for juveniles should, with great discrimination and in the rarest of cases, be used around the world, but before doing so, the stipulations for its use must be clearly stated and in order to be truly effective must be abided by all countries with penalty for breaking the code.

Juvenile crime is not new. Juveniles have committed crimes for as long as human history has endured. The subject of this paper is juveniles imprisoned for life. There are thousands of juveniles around the world, but mostly centered in the United States of America, who are currently serving life sentences for crimes they committed or were at least found guilty of. A great deal of the juveniles with life sentences are furthermore sentenced to prison without any hope or chance of parole. Throughout the paper, the acronym LWOP will be used to refer to prisoners who are serving Life Without Parole. This is a term developed in the study and practice of criminal justice.

In most, if not all, countries, there is a separate criminal justice system and practice specifically designed and designated for juvenile offenders. This is the juvenile justice system. Most juveniles, after found guilty of committing crimes, are put through the juvenile justice system. Many readers may be aware that the justice system and the legal system in general is much different regarding juveniles over adults. The same offences that are committed by juveniles and adults have variations in their penalties and sentences. An adult would likely receive a more severe punishment for armed robbery than an adolescent who committed the same crime.

There are some crimes that are so heinous and there are some disturbed personalities that are so ominous that there are cases when juveniles are tried and penalized in the exact same manner as an adult would with the same history and having committed the same crime.

In the first case (Miller v. Alabama), Evan Miller was 14 years old when he robbed and repeatedly beat an intoxicated neighbor with a baseball bat then set the man's trailer on fire and left him to die. The juvenile court, under state law, transferred Miller to adult court based on the nature of the crime, his previous delinquency history, and the fact that he was deemed competent to stand trial. Miller was found guilty of capital murder. Since he was 14 at the time of the crime, Miller was not eligible for capital punishment but rather Alabama's mandatory minimum sentence of LWOP. In the second case (Jackson v. Hobbs), Kuntrell Jackson was also 14 when he and two other teenagers attempted to rob a video store. Jackson knew one of his accomplices had a sawed-off shotgun and threatened the female store clerk before one of the other teenagers shot her in the face and killed her. Jackson was tried in adult court, where he was found guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to LWOP under Arkansas state law. (Stimson and Garvey, Page 1)

The above cases are cases from the United States and were heard in courts as recently as the spring of 2012. These cases were brutal in of themselves, but seem even more heinous because they were committed by juveniles. The crimes were severe and mandated severe punishment. Herein lies an aspect of the central debate of LWOP juveniles: when it is all right to treat juveniles like adults and put them through the adult justice system?

The vast majority of juveniles who commit crimes are tried in the juvenile justice system. Every state has a separate juvenile justice system to deal with juvenile crimes. Those systems exist because American society believes that most teen criminals can be rehabilitated -- or at least should be given the opportunity to try to reform their ways. That is smart public policy. Thus, there is a national consensus that most juveniles belong in the juvenile justice system. But there is another national consensus: that a small percentage of the worst teen offenders -- a small percentage of teen murderers -- should be waived and/or tried in adult court. And a small percentage of those who are convicted of the worst crimes should be eligible for LWOP. (Stimson and Garvey, Page 2)

Thus there are two concentric circles of consensus regarding juvenile offenders and the use of the juvenile justice system. For the most part, the vast majority of countries in the world believe that life sentences in prison for juveniles is unacceptable and counterproductive to rehabilitation. At the same time, country authorities contend that juveniles that commit the most detestable crimes be subjected to the adult penal system including the use of LWOP. In this way, the debate about juvenile life sentencing is moderately similar to the debate about the death penalty -- which is that sometimes, the crime is so bad that the guilty party should be put to death, but the death penalty should not be perceived as a quick-fix, cure-all, or default option for punishment. This and in other ways, which the paper will explore, is how those who argue against the use of juvenile LWOP compare LWOP to death penalty.

Those in opposition to LWOP for juveniles in the United States often argue that the use of LWOP for juveniles is unconstitutional. They cite the 8th Amendment, which in summary is the guarantee of the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. People on this side of the argument, which is growing in number and support over time, contend that LWOP is unconstitutional just as much as the death penalty for a juvenile would be. It is this line of argumentation the opposers of juvenile LWOP use to claim that LWOP is simply another form of the death penalty, but is essentially the same unconstitutional sentence.

…the Eighth Amendment also prohibits sentencing juveniles to life without parole because this sanction is a death sentence in its own right. A sentence of life without parole amounts to "death by incarceration" since offenders are sentenced to die in prison, making this sanction "our other death penalty." Our justice system should not subject juveniles to death by incarceration for the same reasons that the Court in Roper prohibited the use of death by execution with juveniles. It is well established and accepted by the Court that, as a class, juveniles are inherently immature, impulsive, and vulnerable to social pressure. Their characters are not fully formed, and hence the Court in Roper viewed them as capable of change, and deserving of the opportunity to change. These inherent attributes of adolescents reduce the culpability of juveniles and their susceptibility to deterrence, making a final and irrevocable sanction like death by incarceration fundamentally inappropriate. Moreover, death by incarceration, like death by execution, denies juveniles the opportunity to mature and earn forgiveness for their transgressions. (Johnson and Tabri, Page 2)

Juveniles literally are not as developed as adults. There is greater likelihood and probability for successful character rehabilitation for juveniles more so than adults. This is one reason why people argue against the use of LWOP for juveniles. They are not exactly arguing against the life sentence of prison. What they argue against is the systematic denial of the chance for parole. While an important lesson in life is to accept responsibility for one's choices, because juveniles are not fully developed, the law, the justice system, and the penalties for violating the law must take into consideration the crime, the individual, and the stage of development. Adults, by the time they reach adulthood, should know better and should at least have a much clearer understanding regarding consequences, responsibility, actions, and choices.

Juveniles should be afforded more flexible options regarding their sentencing because they are not fully developed adults and because they have so much potential (while there is no guarantee) to correct their deviant behaviors and make a real personal change. They do not stand that chance without the possibility to encounter the outside world while still developing into adults.

…juvenile offenders are inherently immature and irresponsible, but they often outgrow these characteristics in adulthood under normal social conditions. However, prisons do not promote -- and rarely even permit-this positive growth and maturation. Prisons are, by definition, settings of punishment, not forgiveness. A lifetime of prison, in other words, amounts to a lifetime of adolescent immaturity in a setting expressly designed to inflict punishment. (Johnson and Tabri, Page 2 -- 3)

People think that juveniles with life sentences would improve their health and their character if the possibility of parole existed to be something for them to work towards while imprisoned. LWOP is another form of death. Others who argue against LWOP for juvenile declare that LWOP diminishes the health of juveniles in many ways, many of which, lead to premature death.

According to Monahon (2009), juveniles are vulnerable because of their size, lack of experience in the system, and lack of peer support groups. Compared to youth in juvenile facilities, juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and almost twice as likely to be attacked with a weapon by inmates or beaten by staff (Redding, 2010). In order to protect themselves from physical violence, including rape, many youth engage in fights in prison…With little hope of release, juveniles sentenced to LWOP are at risk of self-harm and suicide (Human Rights Watch, 2008). Juveniles in adult facilities are eight times more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities (Redding, 2010). (Spooner, Page 75)

The vulnerability for juveniles as LWOP again, comes from their lack of development. Life in prison has been compared to surviving in a vicious jungle. Anything that can be perceived as a weakness will be preyed upon and exploited as a weakness. Juveniles are younger, smaller, and less experienced in adult life as well as adult prison. Their lack of development physically and psychologically makes them high-risk targets within the general populations when sentenced as an adult (LWOP) and especially when sentenced with other adults. Spending so much of their lifetimes in prison increases the likelihood of premature death, even if they survive the physical and sexual assaults. Juvenile offenders that grow into adults behind bars are much more likely to die earlier than their non-imprisoned counterparts. Prison is literally killing these juveniles.

Offenders sentenced to death by incarceration, like prisoners condemned to death by execution, experience a final and irrevocable sentence that culminates in deaths that are untimely and undignified. Long-term prisoners, and especially those serving terms of life without parole, can be expected to experience poor health relative to their cohorts in the free world. This problem escalates dramatically after they reach the age of fifty, leading to shortened life expectancies and early deaths. Most of these prisoners die "alone, unmourned, a disgrace in the person's own eyes as well as in the eyes of society." (Johnson and Tabri, Page 7)

Thus, if juveniles survive the torment of the other prisoners, they are likely to survive just to end up dying by their own hands much earlier than the average life expectancy. The opposition to LWOP for juveniles use these examples and more to essentially state that LWOP is basically a death sentence and if it is not all right to put a juvenile to death my more direct means, why is all right to put them to death by indirect means such as LWOP?

The LWOP juveniles grow to only know prison, never have the chance to make healthy connections and choices, and die as alone as they feel. This is a way that opposers of LWOP for juveniles support the argument that LWOP is an exercise of cruelty and a violation of human rights.

In this context, the sentence is indeed cruel. These issues have become so well-understood at the international level that a state's execution of this sentence raises the possibility that it not only violates juvenile justice standards but also contravenes international norms established by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Globally, the consensus against imposing LWOP sentences on children is virtually universal. Based on the authors' research, there is only one country in the world today that continues to sentence child offenders to LWOP terms: the United States. (de la Vega and Leighton, Page 985)

If juveniles do not get exposure to the outside world, they will never recover or improve. They will likely die at the hands of other prisoners or from their own. Adults at least had their chance to develop and make choices in a more open and diverse environment other than prison. Juvenile LWOP really is effectively another way to sentence a juvenile to death; the death happens from without as well as from within.

There are other cons to the use of LWOP and they are related. One con of the use of LWOP for juveniles is that it is primarily used on one country only: the United States of America.

Very few countries have historically used life sentences for juvenile offenders…a single country is now responsible for 100% of all child offenders serving this sentence: the United States. Most governments have either never allowed, expressly prohibited, or will not practice such sentencing on child offenders because it violates the principles of child development and protection established through national standards and international human rights law. There are now at least 135 countries that have expressly rejected the sentence via their domestic legal commitments, and 185 countries that have done so in the U.N. General Assembly. (de la Vega and Leighton, Page 989)

Another con of LWOP use, especially with respect to the U.S.A., is that there are the same kinds of biases and problems that exist in the adult justice system as the juvenile justice system.

The data also suggests that there may be gender and racial biases in juvenile LWOP sentencing. Males comprise the majority of the juvenile LWOP population…The evidence also shows that Black youth are disproportionately sentenced to LWOP when compared to White youth. Black youth are sentenced to LWOP at a rate of ten times that of white youth (Human Rights Watch, 2008). (Spooner, Page 75)

It is a highly flawed and biased system used in a country based and heavily predicated on treatment based upon bias that continues to be used despite the abundant and proven statistics that not only is crime going down significantly, but also juvenile crime is going down substantially.

From 1962 to 1981, an average of two juvenile offenders received LWOP sentences each year (Human Rights Watch, 2008). Beginning in 1982, annual increases were reported, peaking at 152 youth in 1996 (Human Rights Watch, 2008). Although crime rates have declined since 1994, it is estimated that the rate at which states sentence youth to LWOP is three times higher than it was in 1992 (Hechinger, 2011). Human Rights Watch (2010) reports that 2,574 individuals are currently serving LWOP for crimes they committed when they were under the age of eighteen. Today, the United States is the only country in the world that actively sentences juveniles to LWOP (Human Rights Watch, 2008). (Spooner, Page 74)

LWOP continues to be used in a biased manner in an unjust manner as a deterrent that has continuously proved ineffective. These are all cons and reasons why the use of LWOP should cease, and at the very least be meticulously reevaluated.

The policies and review process of juvenile LWOPs do not accurately reflect the public perceptions of juveniles and juvenile offenders. There are Americans, despite the staggering statistics, who believe in juveniles' ability to improve and leave a life of crime behind. Yet the policies regarding juvenile LWOP seemed fixed and that is yet another con of the LWOP practice.

Americans may well ask why so many United States continue to violate international human rights law as it is practiced by virtually every other country in the world where children also commit terrible crimes on occasion. Why does the United States continue to impose a sentence that is not humane, appropriate, or a deterrent to crime, and that fails America's children and adults? Surveys demonstrate that Americans believe in the redemption and rehabilitation of children and do not believe that incarcerating youth in adult facilities teaches them a lesson or deters crime. The country's juvenile justice laws and policies should better reflect this understanding. (de la Vega and Leighton, Page 987)